I Don't Hate The Terrorists: A Musing on 9/11's Anniversary

[Ignatz]

I'm going to try to say this without writing a novel. It goes into a lot of the deeper philosophies I have in life.

Anyway, I honestly don't hate Islamic extremists, even those who right now are hiding in cells inside America or other nations, waiting to murder and destroy.

Instead, I pity them.

Imagine what it's like to have your entire life enslaved to hatred. Your only reason for living is to destroy other human beings, and kill yourself in the process.

More generally, imagine what it's like to have your entire life and soul tied to the narrowest of religious views, to have no freedom of action or thought, to throw it away willingly because you have been conditioned from birth to believe that the only worthwhile thing in the world is the words in a centuries old book. You have no love with women because they are inferior property to you. You have no love with your fellow men because you are all bound to a cause of death and suicide, and if you stray from that course even in thought, they will destroy you.

Within your narrow scope of life, the only worthwhile thing to you is to murder other humans, who you really don't even know. They may be good people, some of them, they even follow the same God as you in many ways. But because they are not exactly the same as you, because they do not swear allegiance to the same men as you, they are worthless, lower than pigs.

People who learn to devalue others so easily learn to devalue themselves.

I don't know if humanity and our world was created by God or if it's just some random swirl in the chaos of the universe, but either way, it's an incredible miracle, a beautiful mystery. And the truth is, in the face of eternity it probably matters little if your life is long and happy or short and full of pain. You still get to see it! To perceive the miracle of the Universe is an unimaginable gift. I pity those who throw that gift away or let themselves be blinded to it, and those on ANY side who live by hatred are blind.

[leg]

Yeah, when you put it like that it is sad, but I think there comes a point when people have to stick their heads out of the sand and see the universe for what it really is. I guess it's ok to pity them, but we/you can't let them to continue killing people.

[dook]

Just curious... how many people is "them"? That is, how many people in the world (ballpark figure) do you think are bent on killing innocent americans?

[Ignatz]

I would never suggest that we let terrorists do whatever they want, or "turn the other cheek" to them, the world is what it is and our loved ones are worth protecting, and if these people die or suffer great pain in the process, well, that's their goal anyway, really. But you don't have to hate the enemy to combat them. In fact, letting hatred rule our response to them only leads us to do things that are tactically questionable and morally indefensible.

How many? I don't know, I think when it comes to people that hate America and at least support terrorist acts against us, the number is in the millions. But how many would give their entire lives over to that hatred? Hopefully not very many. Look at it the other way. There may be millions of Americans who would join the military, or have, to fight for our country, but how many would become like Al-Qaeda, even for an official agency like the CIA, giving their whole lives to go into a foreign country to mix with the people there, look them in the eye, get to know them, and then murder thousands of them in one stroke while also killing themself? I hope there wouldn't be very many.

[TkMasTaH]

I agree, I feel bad for the people who are brainwashed and committ suicide bombings and such. However, people like Osama and his higher ups, i have no such feelings for. They are the manipulators of these people. They use religion and the fear of God to get people to do horrible things.

[Moniker]

Honestly, I don't hate terrorists either (well I don't really hate anybody). But it's their leaders that I have a problem with. The thing is, they want us to die because of our influence on the Middle East. America's culture is basically infecting theirs because let's face it, ours is more attractive to someone who hasn't already made up their mind on what kind of culture they like.

Now, add in the fact that their culture is directly tied onto religion, and they see it as an attack on their faith also. So once you introduce the religion card, everything becomes a zero-sum, win or die at all costs scenario. Americans are stubborn, but we're willing to compromise on things, especially if it starts screwing up things back home.

The problem is, terrorists are completely unwilling to compromise and demand nothing short of total victory (the complete expulsion of Americans and Israelis from the Middle East). On the other hand, Americans are completely unwilling to accept completely giving up. We can fight someone to a stalemate and be alright (Korea, Vietnam, War of 1812), but to say we were defeated is unthinkable. Not only is it embarassing, but it severely destroys our respect on the world stage.

[dook]

vietnam ended in stalemate?!? what history book did you read?

[cin669]

I don't hate the terrorists either.. just hate how narrowminded they can be.. it's like you have a feeling you're trying to compromise with a brick wall.. and you want so badly to compromise but it's just not happening.. so you get pissed and angry.

The thing i dislike about the terrorism (besides the killing) is that our government is falling right into what they (terrorists) are seeking to do. They want to undermine our government and have it topple. They are doing this by putting out a zone of fear around everything they could potentially due. What does the government due? They try to protect us by taking away our freedoms and constitutional rights that our ancestors so desperatly fought for and strove to protect. Thus the checks and balances.

As Ben Franklin put it "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

The more the government takes and screws with our daily lives the more discontent and hatred of the government spreads to the point we seek to topple what they have done. This then goes back to what the terrorists were striving for.

Sure we are a ways off from that point and luckily at this time Presidents don't last in office forever.. but the two main political parties are becoming too much alike that eventually they are only different by name.

So, yeah that's what I dislike with this whole thing is that we are giving the terrorists exactly the reactions they are hoping for.

[larcain]

I have to ask you, in what way (unless you fly alot) have you been effected by any security measures the goverment has taken? I cannot think of a single way my life has been effected by them. While you are correct, fear and dissention are what the terrorists want, I don't see the goverment has any choice other than to try to stop them. If they do nothing, folks will complain, no matter what they do proactively, folks will complain. I don't really see they have much in the way of options.

[Moniker]

vietnam ended in stalemate?!? what history book did you read? yes, it did. we bombed the hell out of them and they signed a peace agreement. perhaps you've heard of it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Talks) what happened afterwards had absolutely nothing to do with us.

This then goes back to what the terrorists were striving for. The terrorists are striving for our (and Israel's) complete withdrawal from the Middle East. Everything and anything else they want is only a means to that end.

[AGT-Shady]

I pity them too, right up until they kill someone that I care about, then fuck them all.

[Ignatz]

I don't know if my viewpoint is just hard to understand. I'm not saying I pity their suffering as they blow themself up, I also am not saying I don't look at them as evil, I think ignoring or throwing away your humanity is the basis of all evil acts. Maybe pity wasn't even the right word.

It's just a horrible shame, an absolute disgusting crime, what their society has made of their lives, which is an utter waste, perhaps just as great of a waste as the lives they take. These are, in a lot of cases, brave, intelligent men who would have so much to offer if their souls were not turned into this course of hatred and violence. Which, again, is not to discount the willing choices they made in the matter.

Even their leaders, bin Laden himself, imagine his life. The crushing fear that he must feel every day, the lies he has to tell himself in his heart to maintain his belief that he is justified in the crimes he has committed. You think of him as a character in a movie, a cartoon, but this is a real man somewhere who knows he is a mass murderer. No one who lives by violence and hatred can truly have peace in their heart. They accumulate a debt that will be paid by their soul in the end, and I don't mean that in terms of heaven and hell.

This thread is leaning toward becoming another discussion of policy, and that wasn't my intent. I guess, as I think back on what happened five years ago today, I don't want to think about revenge or homeland security or tactics or all the ways we get manipulated into thinking about it. Instead, I wanted to point out what was really at the very root of it: People allowing hatred to take over their lives and destroy their humanity, leaving only a shell with no soul, a tool to be used for unspeakable ends.

[larcain]

yes, it did. we bombed the hell out of them and they signed a peace agreement. perhaps you've heard of it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Talks) what happened afterwards had absolutely nothing to do with us.


Ding! Ding! Winner!!!
If it had not been for the congress folding, we were in the process of winning. I have read that the only reason n. Vietnam did not surrender was that they knew congress was turning tail.

[MV8]

The thing i dislike about the terrorism (besides the killing) is that our government is falling right into what they (terrorists) are seeking to do. They want to undermine our government and have it topple. They are doing this by putting out a zone of fear around everything they could potentially due. What does the government due? They try to protect us by taking away our freedoms and constitutional rights that our ancestors so desperatly fought for and strove to protect. Thus the checks and balances.

As Ben Franklin put it "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

The more the government takes and screws with our daily lives the more discontent and hatred of the government spreads to the point we seek to topple what they have done. This then goes back to what the terrorists were striving for.

So, yeah that's what I dislike with this whole thing is that we are giving the terrorists exactly the reactions they are hoping for.


What has the Gvmt. done to YOU directly to impact your freedoms? Can you name something that you can't do now that you could do on Sept. 10 2001? I can do everything I used to do. The library is still there, my bank is still there, I can go anywhere in the Nation that I choose to go without having to show "my papers" at the border of any state. I can do what I want, when I want. (except for the lines at the airports...And all I have to say about that is that I stand in much longer lines at Disneyland to go on a minute and a half ride that really sucks anyways...So I dont see that as a meaningful interruption of my life)

For myself and my family, nothing has changed. No one that I know, has had their life changed by this stuff.

I read all the time about, '"As Ben Franklin put it "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."' He also is said to have said, "Distrust and caution are the parents of security.

[Sutterkane]

Ding! Ding! Winner!!!
If it had not been for the congress folding, we were in the process of winning. I have read that the only reason n. Vietnam did not surrender was that they knew congress was turning tail.

other things that probably helped n. vietnam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda

[ass*assassin]

damn, don't Even get me started on hanoi jane... i would kick the shit out of her right now if i could.. better yet, let's put her up on treason charges, since there is no statute of limitations on that..

anyway, terrorists? I got no pity for.. do i *hate them* personally? No, i detest their methods and have no respect for them.. taking on a legitimate military target head to head, i have no problems with, but to target those least able to defend themselves is nothing less than cowardice. virtually every one of these 'terrorists' are cowards in their own right, and wouldn't make a good private in our army.

I quote from the movie breaker morant, where they are in front of the court martial, " Terrorists? We captured them, and we shot them. " A fine way to handle them.. no pity, for they show none in return.

notice, i do not put legitamate enemy combatives in this mixture.. they are covered by the geneva convention. terrorists are not..

[Zogo]

I have to ask you, in what way (unless you fly alot) have you been effected by any security measures the goverment has taken?

some of my rights have been taken away.

What has the Gvmt. done to YOU directly to impact your freedoms?

maybe you've heard of US citizens being held without charge or trial?

or are you going to say we don't have any complaint until we're personally being carted away?

Can you name something that you can't do now that you could do on Sept. 10 2001?

I'm guaranteed less rights.
also, I can't go into the crown of the statue of liberty. very ironic.

[Bookrat]

Can you name something that you can't do now that you could do on Sept. 10 2001?
First one that pops to mind; cross the USA/Canadian border without a passport. Until very recently, all that was required was proof of identity; now, only a passport will do.

Yes, one could argue that they are two different countries, so it makes sense that you have to have a passport... but this has never been the case prior to July of this year. It has been in the works since ~2003 ... and is definitely attributable to the post-9/11 mentality.

(Question for those in the southern USA or Mexico; is it required to have a passport to go from USA to Mexico for a weekend binge? Or to get back into the USA? I've heard different stories from different people.)

[AGT-Shady]

No it's not, at least in border towns, you are allowed to walk across and back with just a Drivers License.

I've also know that as you go about 20-40 miles into Mexico however, they have checkpoints where you may not proceed any further without a passport. I don't know the details of exactly how far and where you may go, but I know both of those things to be accurate.

[ohman]

No it's not, at least in border towns, you are allowed to walk across and back with just a Drivers License.

I've also know that as you go about 20-40 miles into Mexico however, they have checkpoints where you may not proceed any further without a passport. I don't know the details of exactly how far and where you may go, but I know both of those things to be accurate.
However, this will change at the end of the year (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/documents_needed.xml.


I'm guaranteed less rights.
also, I can't go into the crown of the statue of liberty. very ironic.
I can't believe I actually agree with Zogo on something...

[agi|e]

I don't feel angry towards them either. American patriots used guerrilla tactics against the British when they tried to interfere with their lives as well. Is this so much different then what they are doing against the US government now? Also could someone explain to me why these terrorist attacks are happening now and never happened before 1948? To demonize a people and not look at both sides of the equation is shortsighted and ultimately futile. These people ARE extreme and narrowminded in their religious fanaticism. But they didn't attack us first. The attack of 9/11 was provoked by US interference in the Middle East - in their back yard.

"WASHINGTON - In later years, his daughter Margaret would say it was the most difficult decision Harry Truman ever faced as president. Should he support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, or shouldn't he?
His advisers were split. Clark Clifford - Truman's debonair legal counsel - fervently believed he should. The Jews deserved a sanctuary after the horror of the Holocaust, Clifford argued. Besides, the new state would likely come to pass whether Truman urged it or not.

Secretary of State George Marshall felt otherwise. The retired general was a towering figure in the capital: Truman himself said "there wasn't a decoration big enough" to honor Marshall's leadership during World War II. At a White House meeting on May 12, 1948, Marshall objected to quick US recognition of a Jewish homeland. It would look as if Truman was angling for Jewish votes, he said, and might endanger access to Arab oil. He went so far as to say that if Truman went ahead and recognized the new state, then he, personally, would vote against him in the coming election.

It was an extraordinary rebuke to a sitting chief executive - and it didn't work. Two days later, Israel was born at the stroke of midnight, Jerusalem time. The United States announced its recognition of the new nation 11 minutes later."

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1026/p1s1-uspo.html

If the US were to back out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel what would happen? There would be no more attacks against the US. I don't see attacks happening against Switzerland. Why is that? Because they are neutral and don't interfere with the conflicts of other nations. Lastly the notion that the US is helping the people over there for altruistic reasons is a complete joke. Note the pleas of people in countries like Algeria and Rwanda that were completely ignored because these countries don't have the natural resources the US wants. The whole mess is a complete disaster which gets worse by the minute as the US population continues to allow it's politicians and media to continue the lies and charade.

[Zogo]

Also could someone explain to me why these terrorist attacks are happening now and never happened before 1948?

what do you mean?

[VeeKaChu]

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.
IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.What has the government done? Lolz. Your leaders are trying with all their might to pervert one of the most brilliantly concieved systems of governance into something other than what it is. I won't speculate on what their ultimate aim is because I don't know it, but it has something to do with power and money.

I'm tired of harping on it, and to get back to the original topic, the people I pity are the Bush Apologists who would rather support a corrupt, fascist, criminal, autocratic regime (http://www.bushflash.com/14.html) who will take their own rights as surely as they take mine, out of some fear of not only a non-existent "Global Islamofascism Movement", but also out of fear of some "liberal bogeyman".

I'll say it again- bipartisanship is destroying America. There is no "right" party or "wrong" party. There are Americans and Anti-Americans, and the Antis- are at the helm right now.

But if your cool with that, it's OK. You're in the same boat as the rest of us, you're just not baling.

[Moniker]

I'll say it again- bipartisanship is destroying America. There is no "right" party or "wrong" party. There are Americans and Anti-Americans, and the Antis- are at the helm right now. I can't decide if this is a brilliantly crafted joke or not. I'm so confused :(

[Kartikeya-OD]

I posted this on my blog figured it should be posted here as well.

Keith Olbermann's 9/11 Commentary on President Bush. Comment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP27yTa8d9s)

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

[larcain]

I can't decide if this is a brilliantly crafted joke or not. I'm so confused :(

Nah. When I scrolled down to his post, the rabid foam started oozing through my monitor for the website. Oddest thing.

[shaggy]

Terrorist = One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Terrorism = The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Do I hate terrorist? It's a hard question to answer b/c terrorist is a pretty broad category. You could consider the Americans dumping the tea off the British ships in the Boston Tea Party as Terrorist. Do I hate them, of course not. Some times terrorism is a good thing. When a body of power over steps the boundaries of what's right and wrong, terrorism can be a good means to put them in their place.

Now, I assume when you say terrorist, you're speaking of the muslims that kill innocent people b/c they are unclean, infidels. Yes I hate every single one of these people. They hurt/kill people because of their nationality or religion, and no one has that right. Now some say they pity them b/c they were raised with hate, but I can not. The fact is, to a religious person such as a muslim, life is just a blink of an eye compare to the eternity of the after life. And by taking lives, they ensure a place in heaven. And how can you pity someone that kills others just for their own gain.

I'd like to end this by also saying I do not hate muslims in general, but I do hate their religion and here is why. Their religion promotes violence and hatred even if they do not act on it. Here are some passages from the Koran to illistrate what I mean.

Sura 3: about 79 – “Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers.”



Sura 4: about 91 – “Whom God leads astray, thou wilt not find for him a way. They wish that you disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them, take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper …”



Sura 4: about 102 – “And when you are journeying in the land there is no fault in you that you shorten your prayer, if you fear the unbelievers may afflict you; the unbelievers are for you a manifest foe.”



Sura 5: about 56 – “O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them.



Sura 8:65 – O Prophet, urge on the believers to fight. If there be twenty of you, patient men, they will overcome two hundred; if there be a hundred of you, they will overcome a thousand unbelievers, for they are a people who understand not.”



Sura 9:29 – “Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practice not the religion of truth … until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”



Sura 9: 125 – “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing.”



Sura 47: 4-5 – “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads.

[leg]

You could say the same about Christianity in that God promotes killing those that disbelieve. But really, just because someone is a muslim, catholic, jew, doesn't mean he or she promotes or thinks it's ok to kill innocent people. Last time I checked those that do are the minority in this world.

[VeeKaChu]

Nah. When I scrolled down to his post, the rabid foam started oozing through my monitor for the website. Oddest thing.Oh look, a Bush Apologist resorting to name-calling and personal attacks. I'm shocked.

[shaggy]

You could say the same about Christianity in that God promotes killing those that disbelieve. But really, just because someone is a muslim, catholic, jew, doesn't mean he or she promotes or thinks it's ok to kill innocent people. Last time I checked those that do are the minority in this world.

Well, it's hard to fight an argument with so many flaws. First off, you can not say the same about Christianity. In the old testiment, God "punished" some societies for their evil ways, but it doesn't anywhere command the jews to hurt others. Furthermore, Christianity in general uses the old testament as more of a historical back ground, and follow the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. And I would love for you to find a scripture where jesus commands people to do violent acts upon non believers.

Secondly, I never said people of a religion must promote what their religion teaches. Infact I said I didnt hate the muslims. I said I hate their religion b/c it commands violent acts on other cultures. And yes I do believe that's wrong.

[leg]

You say "Christianity in general uses the old testament as more of a historical back ground" and today that might be true, but there have been numerous accounts in that past where the Bible was taken more litterially.

God punishing societies for their evil ways is almost equivalent to to killing those who do not believe.

[larcain]

Oh look, a Bush Apologist resorting to name-calling and personal attacks. I'm shocked.

No. The rabid stuff just accurately describes your post.

Now if I had said:
"Oh, look another rabid lib trying to keep from jumping from a building because he's heard that Air America is filing for chapter 7."

That would be a personal attack.

And I am kinda shocked. While I usually disagree with you, I don't normally envision you as being the kinda guy that resorts to non-sensical rhetoric. Which is what your post is.

[shaggy]

You say "Christianity in general uses the old testament as more of a historical back ground" and today that might be true, but there have been numerous accounts in that past where the Bible was taken more litterially.

God punishing societies for their evil ways is almost equivalent to to killing those who do not believe.

I see where you are coming from...How there have been radicals of all religions throughout history. I agree with you 100%. I think the difference is most radicals throughout history have been tagged with misinterpting their religion. The reason being, although there are violent stories throughout many religions, there is no scriptures from their God or gods commanding his people to commit violent acts on a certain race or culture. Atleast I know this is true for the Jews and Christians. But Islam clearly states in the Koran passages where their God commands violence on other cultures. And I think in today's sophiticated society, this is the reason why you only see Muslim terrorist.

[Bookrat]

Some times terrorism is a good thing. When a body of power over steps the boundaries of what's right and wrong, terrorism can be a good means to put them in their place.
You know that this is the same logic used by every terrorist -- individual or organization -- to justify their actions, right? Including attacks against USAians?

What manner of mental contortionism does it take to say such a thing, yet not realize that the person one has classified as one's enemy is saying exactly the same thing? Such philosophical blinders simply boggle me.

Perhaps it is only 'right' when you say it, while 'they' are all deluded lunatics?(Of course, they all say that too...)

[shaggy]

You know that this is the same logic used by every terrorist -- individual or organization -- to justify their actions, right? Including attacks against USAians?

What manner of mental contortionism does it take to say such a thing, yet not realize that the person one has classified as one's enemy is saying exactly the same thing? Such philosophical blinders simply boggle me.

Perhaps it is only 'right' when you say it, while 'they' are all deluded lunatics?(Of course, they all say that too...)


First of all I said sometimes which means sometimes. And your telling me throughout history there has never been a time that a terrorist attack was not just....of course we call them revolutionist to give them a positive spin. But never the less, they are the same. Secondly, these sometimes I speaked of are when a body of power enslaves/oppresses a culture to a breaking point. Then yes sometimes it is looked upon as a possitive event if it creates a positive change. Now this is of course not the case for the muslim terrorist. America is not hendering them in such a way that gives just cause to make terrorist attacks. Secondly, they aren't just targeting america. They are targeting all Infadel nations and people. Muslim Terrorist believe salvation and the destruction of Infadels go hand and hand.

Anyways, my point was not to show terrorism as a good tool to change governments. My point was there are many different types/reasons for terrorism. And you can't just classify the muslim terrorist and american revolutionist on the same page. Sooo simmer down now :P

[Moniker]

we should be fighting to elect someone who will do good for our country instead of turn it inside out and upside down and totally ream it's asshole like bush has done. Easier said than done when nobody like this ever goes up for election. And if you say Hillary, so help me I will reach through the internet and strangle you.

And your telling me throughout history there has never been a time that a terrorist attack was not just....of course we call them revolutionist to give them a positive spin. Dude, you need to understand the difference between guerilla tactics and terrorism. Go learn about this shit before you start offering opinions. The Viet Cong weren't terrorists. Even the Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets weren't terrorists (unless theres some horrible strong of incidents I don't know about).

[Zogo]

there is no scriptures from their God or gods commanding his people to commit violent acts on a certain race or culture.

in the OT there were plenty of times that god called for races to be wiped out or heavily damaged.

Easier said than done when nobody like this ever goes up for election.

yea they do they just don't get any press/air time because they are blocked from being allowed to debate.

[Moniker]

yea they do they just don't get any press/air time because they are blocked from being allowed to debate. I was referring to those coming from either the Democrat or Republican camps. An independent with the ability to fix the whole country is absolutely worthless because they won't get elected, so it doesn't really matter if they go up for it or not.

[VeeKaChu]

No. The rabid stuff just accurately describes your post.

Now if I had said:
"Oh, look another rabid lib trying to keep from jumping from a building because he's heard that Air America is filing for chapter 7."

That would be a personal attack.

And I am kinda shocked. While I usually disagree with you, I don't normally envision you as being the kinda guy that resorts to non-sensical rhetoric. Which is what your post is.Calling it non-sensical rhetoric dismisses it out of hand, quite nicely, as does calling me "rabid" and "foaming". Neither response addresses in the least my point that your leaders are corrupt, criminal and destroying America.

Obviously you have no response to that, because it's undeniably true and plain to see. So go ahead and continue to not respond to my valid points. It's what you Bush Apologists do best these days.

[Cyberdemon]

stuff

You hate Islam (your words, not mine) because senseless killing has been carried out in its name, but Christianity is honky-dory?

...?

[larcain]

Calling it non-sensical rhetoric dismisses it out of hand, quite nicely, as does calling me "rabid" and "foaming". Neither response addresses in the least my point that your leaders are corrupt, criminal and destroying America.

Obviously you have no response to that, because it's undeniably true and plain to see. So go ahead and continue to not respond to my valid points. It's what you Bush Apologists do best these days.


Geezus you just KEEP spouting crap. Just keep up the rabid stuff. It really is convincing...and stupid.

You can continue to spout idiotic stuff about corruption, criminal and all kinds of accusations. But..here are the facts for you

Your presidents, from Truman to LBJ to Carter to Clinton, have given us:

The beginnings of the cold war in Germany
The beginnings of the mideast problems (at least in the 20th centry version)
The beginnings of Viet Nam as well as working ineptly to lose a war it took fricken NIXON to bring about some chance of victory.
To the beginings of the Iran problems we face today (yeah, that would be the momumental failure Jimmy Carter)
The necessity to handle Iraq (because they did nothing)
The nuclear threat we face in N. Korea
The fomenting of the terrorist threats we face today by not doing anything about Bin laden

Yeah, AS USUAL you are the party of stands around, creates fricken problem. POSE ZERO solutions, then bitch whine complain and call names when the people you dumped the fricking problem on have no choice but to try to fix it. You just keep spout foaming idiotic rhetoric about corruption. I'm going to try to pass right over whatever stupid things you have to say so that I don't continually have to wipe the foaming drool off my monitor.

[VeeKaChu]

Ok, more of nothing. Speaking to me of MY presidents and MY party? So you're an expert on me now!

Once again, anyone with an opposing view must be a "liberal" "democrat". It can't be that they are simply a concerned American, who'd like to preserve the country and the system of governance that was handed down to them.

Forget the past, forget trying to discredit me by spouting crap about what you think you know about me. How about directly addressing what your leaders are doing right now, and making a case for "staying the course". Explain to me how they're making things better for all of us, make me see what I'm missing.

That would be an actual response.

[Civil]

Were we a country of terrorist when we wiped two cities off the face of the earth?

Can a fool notice another fool?

[larcain]

Ok, more of nothing. Speaking to me of MY presidents and MY party? So you're an expert on me now!

Once again, anyone with an opposing view must be a "liberal" "democrat". It can't be that they are simply a concerned American, who'd like to preserve the country and the system of governance that was handed down to them.

Forget the past, forget trying to discredit me by spouting crap about what you think you know about me. How about directly addressing what your leaders are doing right now, and making a case for "staying the course". Explain to me how they're making things better for all of us, make me see what I'm missing.

That would be an actual response.




None of the junk you've posted justifies your original rabid diatribe, so Ill just ignore it till you actually try REASON.

[Moniker]

It can't be that they are simply a concerned American, who'd like to preserve the country and the system of governance that was handed down to them.
In all fairness, someone who doesn't oppose Bush isn't necessarily a Bush apologist, conservative, or Republican.

I seem to get tagged as a Republican even though I've never voted for one.

[VeeKaChu]

None of the junk you've posted justifies your original rabid diatribe, so Ill just ignore it till you actually try REASON.How is my stating the obvious a "rabid diatribe"? The truth hurts that much?
More likely, you simply cannot defend the indefensible...
In all fairness, someone who doesn't oppose Bush isn't necessarily a Bush apologist, conservative, or Republican.

I'd define a "Bush Apologist" as anyone who thinks that George still deserves to be President, in light of all of the evident incompetence, corruption and criminal misbehavior of his regime. His opponents don't define someone as such; they do it themselves by supporting him in the least.

[dys]

make me see what I'm missing.

That would be an actual response.
THAT would be a damn miracle.

[shaggy]

You hate Islam (your words, not mine) because senseless killing has been carried out in its name, but Christianity is honky-dory?

...?

No, I did not...I said I hate Islam b/c the religion clearly states to go kill all your enemies (infadels) in many passages throughout the Koran while the bible does not. And for those that are not real christians, the teachings of Jesus from the new testament is what we follow. The old testament is more of a history lesson. And again even though in the old testament god did wipe out many races and cultures. He never commanded the jews to wipe out races. The difference being, Muslims have a direct order from their god to kill people, while the jews and definitely the christians DO NOT. Trust me if the bible did give a direct order to kill non believers, there would be alot of christain terrorism too.

Counsel given by St. Augustine in the 300’s: Do not judge a religion by the abuses of its adherents; rather, judge it through a careful analysis of the essential teachings of that religion, its sacred writings.

[leg]

Trust me if the bible did give a direct order to kill non believers, there would be alot of christain terrorism too.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=DEUT%2017&version=9;

This appears to be one instance.

[Kartikeya-OD]

Afraid not. Deuteronomy 17 and the entire book for that matter delt with their tribe or people if you will. Not 'non-believers'. Your not going to find a single verse that states to 'kill an infadel' even in the fulfilled OT.

[Cyberdemon]

The difference being, Muslims have a direct order from their god to kill people, while the jews and definitely the christians DO NOT. Trust me if the bible did give a direct order to kill non believers, there would be alot of christain terrorism too.

Since we're taking Augustine's advice, I assume your claim is that violence is one of Islam's "essential teachings". If this were true, wouldn't it stand to reason that the majority of Muslims across the world - rather than a minority in one region - would be blowing themselves up for the cause?

[shaggy]

Since we're taking Augustine's advice, I assume your claim is that violence is one of Islam's "essential teachings". If this were true, wouldn't it stand to reason that the majority of Muslims across the world - rather than a minority in one region - would be blowing themselves up for the cause?

LOL well I though Good ol Augustine made a good point, and yes you make a good point too. If you take a look at the Koran you'll find it has a mixture of peaceful messages along with violent messages. I believe this has to do with Mohomad's life style. At one point Mohomad was a war lord and at others he was a peaceful prophet. So there is a mangled message. Atleast this is what I remember from the Religious classes i've taken. If this is incorrect please someone correct me.

I think a good example of this situation in the bible is the controvery between "eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek". Although the new testament preaches the message "turn the other cheek", does this totally supercede the old testament's message "an eye for an eye".

Oh I was looking up articles on the web soo I wouldn't sound totally ignorant, which i'm close too but not quite yet :P Read this article. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13626

[Outflow]

Veekachu you're not alone. And trust me, anyone with half a brain can see what people like larcain have to offer; rather lack thereof. But yes, keep on preachin' brother.

[larcain]

Gee, that stings.

[Zogo]

I was referring to those coming from either the Democrat or Republican camps. An independent with the ability to fix the whole country is absolutely worthless because they won't get elected, so it doesn't really matter if they go up for it or not.

you can't exclude someone just because they're not a republican or democrat.

and there are a lot of other parties out there that are not "independent" the R's and D's just have it set up like that in a few states to try and hide that there are other options.

the real reason they don't get a lot of votes is because they aren't allowed to debate on TV..that's why the CPD has been desperately trying to block them since 1992 and even before that.

Your presidents, from Truman to LBJ to Carter to Clinton, have given us:

lol, those aren't my presidents. and really you can't absolve the action of one president by pointing to more incompetence anyway. that's equivalent to defending saddam by pointing out he killed less people than another random dictator.

[Zogo]

The old testament is more of a history lesson. And again even though in the old testament god did wipe out many races and cultures.

the muslims do the same thing from their book..the ones who don't believe in violence don't give credence to the parts that call for explicit violence.

He never commanded the jews to wipe out races.

have you read the entire OT? there are crystal clear passages. numbers 31 I remember offhand..I know there are more.